American Anthropologist 1947

In an effort to better understand modern surgery, Erwin Ackerknecht gives a brief history of the many methods “primitive societies” have used to treat/repair the human body. Furthermore, he attempts to discover the reasons for the lack of substantial surgical and medical progress within these societies. Ackerknecht is convinced that supernatural beliefs are what prevent these societies from advancing their medical knowledge. Moreover, it is these supernatural beliefs that separate “modern” surgery from “primitive” surgery.

In order to come to the previous conclusions, Ackerknecht divides his essay into what he believes are distinct groups of medical practice used by our “modern” surgeons, such as: wound treatments, fractures and dislocations, blood-letting, incisions, amputations, cesarean sections, trepanation’s, etc. He then illustrates how many different “primitives” apply each of these methods onto their own people. While doing so, Ackerknecht is quick to avoid excessive detail concerning specific methods used; however, he does give a great deal of examples relative to which societies use the particular surgical method/exercise in question.

In short, Ackerknecht comes to the conclusion that “primitive” surgery is poor in magnitude and quality. According to him, “primitive” methods have failed to improve not because of a lack of intelligence but because of a limiting belief system. The main reason for this is the restraining influence that supernaturalistic ideas place on these “primitive cultures.” For example, Ackerknecht states that among many “primitives” the universal fear of bodily mutilation and the future life as a ghost is the cause of this phobia.

Anyone who is interested in the surgical or medical practices of early societies would find this essay extremely informative. There are nearly six pages of bibliography; therefore, if one does not find what they are looking for here then the bibliography can give excellent guidance.

Erwin Ackernecht’s review of various surgical techniques practiced by indigenous peoples. He describes the treatment of various ills, including blood loss, fractures, and dislocations, as well as other techniques such as blood-letting by leaches and incisions. Amputations and excisions of various body parts are discussed, as is trepanation. A section entitled Ritual and Judicial Mutilations is offered in contrast.

Ackernecht also offers opinions about the effectiveness and level of advancement attained by these techniques. He depicts certain groups as more or less successful and skillful, comparing some “primitive” techniques and others to contemporary techniques. He also notes various specialties practiced by the “primitives.”

Ackernecht speculates as to why “primitive surgery” has remained so “primitive,” why it, “…has never reached the level of, for example, Alexandrian surgery as it is reflected in Celsus (1st century, A.D.).” He supposes that, “…there exist four possibilities why primitive surgery has not advanced further: that there was no need of surgery; that primitives lack technical skill; that they lack certain elements of knowledge; that other elements of their socio-mental makeup have been unfavorable to the development of surgery among them.” The exact reasons may be difficult to pin down. Ackernecht explains, for example, “It is a fact that one of the main objects of our surgical endeavors, cancer, is rare among primitives, whether for racial reasons, or simply because most of them never reach the cancer age. On the other hand, the ills to which the savages are not exempt are sufficiently numerous to have furnished enough incentive for a more developed surgery.” Ackernecht does, however, have a favorite among these four.

Ackernecht believes the only way to fully explain the “primitive” nature of “primitive surgery” is to take into account their “socio-mental makeup”. He argues that, “…the most satisfactory explanation for the particular character of primitive surgery lies in the direction of the limiting influence which supernaturalistic ideas among primitives exert upon the development of the operator’s art.” This limiting influence does not necessarily lead to illogical or irrational ideas, but rather it contributes to, “…a particular brand of ‘ignorance,’ an ignorance not of technical means, but existing in spite of technical means through different orientation, interests, and values.” Ackernecht argues that this is the key to understanding why “primitive surgery” is so different from the brand he is familiar with, noting that, “…the supernaturalistic approach has been almost entirely eliminated from modern scientific surgery.”

Barnes, Alfred S. The Production of Long Blades in Neolithic Times. American Anthropologist Vol.49: 625-630.

The manufacture of long blades across cultures is the focal point of this article. The term “blade” is used to describe long narrow knife blades of obsidian, chert or flint, and also some leaf shaped blades with flaked surfaces. Barnes draws on a variety of resource materials, including two books in Spanish that date back to 1615 and 1790. These materials, supplemented by contemporary articles, provide detailed instructions on how long blades were made. Included are twenty-one pictures of different blade specimens.

Barnes begins with a detailed description of an Aztec method, focusing (with detailed emphasis) on the technique employed. The flint-knapper would sit on the ground while bracing the obsidian core between his feet. In his hands he held a stout five-foot long staff, which he propelled downward under the weight of his whole body on to the obsidian core. This method ideally resulted in the removal of a long, even flake to be used in a variety of weaponry. In later studies, when the method was tested, it became apparent that in order to hit the correct mark with the staff, a platform needed to be in place on the surface of the obsidian to prevent slippage. Four basic methods are described for preparation of this kind of platform on obsidian prior to flaking.

The long blade technique used by the Aztecs is then compared with a method used by “Native Americans” in general, and the differences are assessed. The main difference Barnes points out was that the “Native Americans” used a technique called “direct pressure” which employed two men and a much smaller stick. This method had the advantage of being much more precise than the Aztec method of “impulsive pressure,” in which the whole body is heaved onto the long staff to make the flake detach from the core.

After an elaborate description of the different methodologies, Barnes tries to further clarify his explanations by using a cube of butter and a knife as an analogy (to give the reader a clearer example of the techniques he has been describing.) He concludes with an overview of the evolution of long blades, beginning with the Solutrean and Achulean traditions of the Upper Paleolithic, moving into the Neolithic Pressigny blades and finally concluding with the making of the famous Neolithic Folsom Points.

Barnes, Alfred S. The Production of Long Blades in Neolithic times. American Anthropologist October-December, 1947 Vol. 49 (4): 625-630.

Barnes uses seventeenth century historical accounts of native Central and North American lithic technology as well as more contemporary reports on experimental archaeology to discuss the production of Neolithic blades. Here Barnes is concerned specifically with the blade-core technologies of Central and North America and Europe, and utilizes his sources in an attempt to explain procedures involved in blade production.

One area of concern for Barnes is tools used in blade manufacture. From an historical account of native Central Americans by Francisco Hernandez published in 1790, he knows that the cores were set on the ground and supported upright by the feet, the worker then used a rather long wooden staff, roughly two feet long, to remove the blades. This was done by setting the distal end of the staff on a point on the edge of the core, and then swiftly lunging one’s weight down on the proximal end, which held a cross bar to bear the weight of the worker. Barnes states this account was widely accepted until 1932, when M. Leon Coutier experimented with this technique and found the staff to be too long. Barnes does not mention the length Coutier found to be effective.

Another important discovery by Coutier was the practice of abrading the edge of the core platform. Hernandez had witnessed this practice, and thought it was to smooth sharp edges of the core, assumingly for safety reasons. Coutier found that abrading the platform was essential, especially for material such as obsidian, which is basically glass, to roughen the surface so the staff did not slip or lose its intended trajectory.

Investigations by George Catlin, reported by G.E. Sellers, sheds some light on native North American blade technology. The worker would often operate from a standing position, which explains the long staff mentioned by Hernandez. Additionally, a tip of antler or bone was secured to the distal end of the staff to further prevent slipping.

Barnes notes three platform treatments that stand out in the archaeological record: 1) abrasion, 2) faceting (removing very small flakes to produce divots), and 3) utilizing the natural, relatively rough cortex of the nodule. Sometimes a combination of these techniques was employed.

Barnes categorizes all these blade-core technologies as “Neolithic”, probably based on their morphological and technological similarities. Absolute dating was not available in 1947, so it is easy to understand his logic. He does mention, however, the “time-lag” that must be considered between the Americas and Europe.

David Bidney explores the conflict between two differing views of the relationship between human nature and culture. The cultural process can either be seen to form human nature, or it can merely influence and shape human nature. Bidney argues that while culture plays an important role in the development of human nature, it is certainly not the only factor. He claims that culture includes certain characteristics of individuals in a particular society and social institutions that aid individuals in accomplishing their goals. Also included in Bidney’s definition of culture are the products of these cultural activities.

Before reaching his discussion on the polarity of nature and culture, Bidney evaluates several differing views on human nature and culture. He begins with the fact that one cannot separate the form from the process when defining the substance of cultural reality. Secondly, Bidney explains that mentifacts (symbols and instruments) and socifacts (social norms and organizations) are the superorganic aspects of culture, while the more personal and dynamic aspects of culture are organic. He notes at this point, that while organicism and superorganicism are two extreme positions, both positions are part of the cultural process. Bidney argues that the concept of social heritage is wrong because the superorganic aspects of culture do not automatically determine human nature. Instead, authentic culture must be individualized and personal so that it will be valued and influential.

Bidney’s main point is that nature and culture are polar in that individuals are dependant upon the determinant factors of culture, but are also able to transform and adapt to different conditions within the environment. While human nature is obviously prior to culture, the cultural process still plays a significant role in its development. Bidney realizes that there will be conflicts between the individual and his society, which will require discipline in order to produce the ideal type of man. This polarity also infers that there is no exact science to predict human nature and the cultural process.

This article expresses David Bidney’s perspective on the relationship between human nature and the cultural process. Bidney’s belief was that individual personality and actions could not simply be explained as the result of enculturation. Nor could it be explained as simply human nature. Bidney urged that both these aspects should be “reconciled” rather than considered in opposition. Bidney argued that human nature affected individuals and their actions, but that culture also helped to develop individuals’ natural potential and limit their natural impulses to function socially.

Bidney begins by defining culture as the product and the process of being “self-cultivated” (encultured) including various “acquired forms of technique, behavior, feeling and thought of individuals within society and … the social institutions in which they cooperate for the attainment of common ends.” The abstract idea of culture in general should be distinguished from the specific culture of a given society. Bidney then contrasts his approach with the view of culture as a logical construct, which he associates in particular with Clyde Kluckhohn and John Gillin. This concept of culture distinguishes actual behavior from culture, that is “the patterns or forms of behavior.” While anthropologists may be drawn to abstract out general forms, cultural reality is actually “a union of form and matter.” Culture may be studied by different means, but it can not be understood apart from the individual.

Bidney then discusses in great detail the extent to which “social heritage,” the products of culture including artifacts, sociofacts (social norms and organizations), and mentifacts (language, traditions, and literature) can have a “superorganic” existence independent of the individual. He concludes that an “impersonal superorganic culture is an abstraction” where as “personal, individualized culture is the ultimate, existential reality in the sphere of social life.” It is from this understanding the Bidney argues that any understanding of human culture must be developed in relation to “the potentialities of human nature.”

Bidney argues that human nature both determines culture and is transformed by it; that is, a “polarity” exists between human nature and culture. He believes that stressing this interplay makes it possible to avoid both the “naturalistic fallacy” (in which culture is seen as the outgrowth of human nature) and the “cultural fallacy” (in which cultural phenomena have an independent existence). He argues that either of these views is “fallacious” and neither nature nor culture came first since man is defined as being a “cultural animal by nature.” Bidney thinks many anthropologists were guilty of the “cultural fallacy,” meaning they ignored human nature and viewed culture as evolving by its own laws. Instead, he insists that culture cannot evolve on its own, but requires human natural creativity to change and create it.

Bidney also argues that culture serves human’s natural needs as well as regulating their natural impulses. He writes that there are “certain universal cultural institutions in all types of human societies, which answer to the universal needs for food, shelter, protection, communication, social relations, and the psychobiological crises of life, such as birth, puberty, marriage and death. The precise form which these universal institutions and mores take is in turn determined by a variety of factors such as the nature of geographical and social environment, as well as by the more or less unique historical experiences and cultural contacts of the various societies.”

Bidney makes a strong argument against both “superorganic” and “naturalistic” views, and takes a middle ground. He carefully explains the views of others, and then argues his own side. Bidney clearly saw human nature as being neglected by anthropologists. His positions are clear but the subject of the article is inherently complicated. Strongly influenced by philosophers Kant and Aristotle, Bidney’s article is filled with philosophical jargon.

Davidson’s article examines the history of fire making in Australia with special attention to the exceptional diversity in methods found there. According to the author, only one method is typically found in most parts of the world, with two methods in any one place being quite unusual. In contrast, in Australia four methods are found; the fire-drill; the fire-saw; the fire-plow; and percussion (striking flint with iron pyrites or steel). Davidson conducted his research first in 1930 and 1931 under a grant from the University of Pennsylvania Museum and the Social Science Research Council, and continued it in 1938 and 1939 under the auspices of the University of Pennsylvania, The American Philosophical Society and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He includes a lengthy bibliography.

Starting with a general overview, Davidson discusses how long humans have been thought to have used fire and when they developed the ability to generate it themselves. Although he estimates that humans have used fire for several hundred thousand years, the author believes that the ability to actually generate it happened around three thousand years ago.

Davidson provides a brief description of each method of fire making and a map of their distribution throughout the Australian continent. The likely place of introduction and subsequent migration of each method is noted. While relatively short, this article provides useful information for anyone interested in the history of fire making.

Davidson’s article examines the four principle methods used by aborigines to make fire in Australia and the distribution of their use throughout the continent. He concluded the fire-drill, characterized by the repeated twisting of a stick into tinder, to be the oldest and most widely distributed. The fire-saw method, prevalent throughout the interior and believed to be the replacement of the former, uses the stick in a sawing motion to create friction. He briefly explains the distribution of the fire-plow but give no explanation of its use. The last section deals with percussion, the process of striking flint with ironstone to create a spark, and its irregular distribution due to presence of suitable stone.

Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association. Statement on Human Rights. American Anthropologist October-December, 1947. Vol.49(4):539-543.

In June of 1947, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association submitted this statement to the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations. The statement reveals concerns for the preparation of a Declaration on the Rights of Man to be presented by the Commission on Human Rights. This Declaration must include both the “respect for the personality of the individual” as it may develop to its fullest potential as a member of a society and the “respect for the cultures of differing human groups.” The difficulty in formulating a statement of human rights is phrasing respect for the individual as an individual, while taking into account the individual as a member of the social group of which he/she is a part. The Executive Board is concerned about whether the proposed Declaration, being written from a Western-world perspective, is applicable to all human beings.

The Executive Board recognizes that no two human groups are the same and that in every social group the belief is that the way of life of that group is the most desirable. Though ethnocentrism is a part of all human groups, in general, so is the willingness to live and let live. Humans are tolerant of other human groups’ behavior as long as there is no conflict in the subsistence field. It is also recognized that in the history of Western civilization, controls have been established over non-European peoples and that the core of similarities between cultures has been overlooked. The extermination of populations in the expansion of the western world has been rationalized through ascribing cultural inferiority to these peoples, thus demoralizing human personality and disintegrating human rights, which is the very purpose of the statement being proposed.

With this understanding, the Executive Board considers three important principles in drawing up a Bill of Human Rights. “1. The individual realizes his personality through his culture, hence respect for individual differences entails a respect for cultural differences.” In order for an individual to have full development of personality, he/she must have the right to believe that his/her way of life is the best. When a powerful culture states that an individual’s way of life is inferior it will hinder personal development and deteriorate the individual’s human rights. All humans are biologically the same, and though cultures differ in degree of complexity and content, “all existing ways of life meet the test of survival.”

“2. Respect for differences between cultures is validated by the scientific fact that no technique of qualitatively evaluating cultures has been discovered.” This principle is meant to emphasize the universals in human conduct rather than the absolutes stressed by Western culture. Every human group lives in devotion to verities whose eternal nature is held significant to that human group. One culture cannot qualify another human group based upon the eternal verities taught within that culture.

The final principle states, “3. Standards and values are relative to the culture from which they derive so that any attempt to formulate postulates that grow out of the beliefs or moral codes of one culture must to that extent detract from the applicability of any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.” Since the Declaration must be of world-wide applicability, it cannot be circumscribed by the standards of a single culture or dictated by the aspirations of a single human group. A document such as this would not fulfill the purpose of a statement of human rights by encompassing the personalities among vast numbers of human beings. Instead it would lead to frustrations.

The Executive Board concludes with a statement emphasizing that it is not possible to create a Declaration of Human Rights unless it incorporates a right for humans to live in terms of their own traditions and allows for free play of personality among and between social groups.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropologist Association submitted this piece to the United Nations as the UN was preparing its Declaration on the Rights of Man. AA held two points of view to be considered, the rights of the individual, and the rights of cultures. The association maintained that an individual exists within a group and groups are composed of individuals. The problem for the UN, as seen by the executive board, was the application of rights that reflect the values of the world, and not just the values of the West. A declaration of a person’s rights to develop fully must acknowledge that individuals develop in conditions established within cultures.

The executive board offers three provisos: 1) because the individual and his personality exist within a culture framework, therefore a declaration must not only respect individual differences, but culture differences as well; 2) No method for quantitatively evaluating culture has been discovered; and 3) Values are culturally relative, therefore ideas from beliefs or moral codes of one culture, necessarily isolate those ideas from any Declaration of Human Rights to mankind as a whole.

An interesting paragraph following these provisos hints at the influence made by the American Bill of Rights might have played upon the formulation of the UN declaration. The board notes that America’s “noble” document was composed by slave-owners in a land where humans beings were a commodity. The Bill of Rights was not about human rights but the rights of some men within a single Western society.

The Executive Board of American Anthropologist concluded an individual is free when he lives as his society deems freedom. Human beings perceive their rights within a cultural setting, and those perceptions must be the basis for human rights.

This article provides a detailed description of customary “laws” found in New Guinea societies. The main focus is on the “K.R.P.,” the “Kamamentina River People” though some practices of the Mondugumor and Arapesh groups of New Guinea are discussed as well. The author draws on his own experiences in New Guinea as well as letters from a colonial magistrate as sources for the article.

Fortune first discusses what he calls the Kamamentina River People’s “municipal law.” This includes laws regulating marriage, including that men are not allowed to marry within their own village. Breaking this law may lead to a fight using pieces of wood between the man and his new father-in-law, as well as public condemnation. Laws regarding widows, remarriage, and the “settlement of disputes between clansmen” are also described. Fortune notes that compensation payments for bloodshed in municipal disputes are of significant economic importance.

Fortune then describes “norms of inter-clan law” regarding marriage and warfare. Customs surrounding marriage and childbirth both entail reciprocal gift giving. For example, in the event of a second child being born to a married couple, the husband given a “full-grown domestic pig to his wife’s relative,” receiving a “shoat” from them in return. War behavior is discussed, including such aspects as marriages between members of enemy clans and “exemptions” when a man’s own clan is fighting against the clan of his mother or the clan into which his paternal aunt has married.

Finally, the author also briefly considers disputes resulting in death between the enemy villages of Mondugumor and Andua and the practice of black magic among the Arapesh people. For support, he includes the corresponding letters between himself and an Australian magistrate, who had witnessed particular incidents involving sorcery and black magic. The author compares these cases with the use of black magic among the K.R.P., claiming that it is of less importance to the latter.

Fortune clearly attempts to find customary New Guinea equivalences to Western legal types. There does not appear to be much similarity between these systems, however.

In this article Fortune examines legal aspects of Papuan social culture. Fortune illustrates the relationship between law and kinship among the Kamamentina River people of central New Guinea. Fortune distinguishes between two types of law that are recognized by the Kamamentina. These laws are “municipal or clan law” and “inter-municipal or inter-clan law.” Fortune examines both types of law and the functions of law within Papuan social culture. Fortune also examines state implemented policies or laws and how they relate to indigenous customs in New Guinea.

Fortune discusses clan law only with reference to norms regulating marriage. He maintains that men cannot marry within their clan but he does not go into further detail about clan law. He asserts that among the Kamamentina clan law is less common than inter-clan law.

In his discussion of inter-clan law, Fortune focuses on norms regulating marriage and norms regulating behavior in war. Fortune maintains that provisions do exist for the maintenance of marriages between warring clans. Furthermore, Fortune asserts that laws exist which prohibit men from personal service in wars against the clan to which their mother was born. Not only is participation in war prohibited in this case, but Fortune suggests that men often become intermediaries that attempt to create alliances between the opposing clans.

Fortune continues his discussion by introducing the Arapesh of New Guinea and state run campaigns to outlaw sorcery and witchcraft in New Guinea. Fortune maintains that among the Arapesh as well as the Kamamentina, reprisals for “peaceful death” are common. Retribution generally occurs in the form of soul stealing. According to Fortune, state law prohibits the indigenous practice of sorcery. Fortune presents a parallel analysis of Kamamentina law and international law by focusing on what he terms the “rule of unanimity.” According to Fortune, inter-clan law is restricted by the rule of unanimity without any real sanctions. Fortune compares this to international law and maintains that if the “out-law” area in international politics is to be controlled, international law must adopt a new policy that is not based on unanimity.

Fortune’s work is problematic because he is not clear about his intent. He discusses law among the Kamamentina and among the Arapesh, proceeds into a discussion of state law pertaining to indigenous custom, and then draws a parallel to international law in his concluding paragraph.

In this article, Garfield explores the tribal organization of the Tlingit town of Angoon, located on the southeastern side of Admiralty Island (known to the Tlingit as “Bear Fort”). At the time of publication, the town’s winter population stabilized at around 350 people but became “virtually deserted” during the summer fishing season. In the past, people had typically dispersed over the island in “many small villages and camps.” Garfield utilizes mythic and historical records of the Tlingit, obtained during the fall of 1945, to illustrate how interpersonal relations influenced the change from small, separate, tribal groupings to a modern township. Her emphasis rests on the “fundamental importance of the house group in Tlingit organization.”

The Tlingit of Angoon were found to be of seven clans: “two of the Raven phraty and five of the Wolf, or Eagle as it is known locally.” The continuing importance of clan ties was evident in the facts that one-third of the fifty houses in Angoon (it is not specified if any non-Tlingit peoples were living there at the time) were owned communally, and that related houses held a reciprocal obligation to assist with funeral and general repair costs. Garfield notes that “these and other functioning relationships keep house and clan affiliations alive.”

Because Tlingit law decrees that “bays, streams, and other productive areas are the private property of certain house groups or local divisions of clans,” knowing the origin of a house group determines the extent to which they are granted local land rights. Many house groups are named after the place where they established a house at the end of a move, and houses themselves are named according to the tale of how the family came to arrive there. Garfield cites “quarrels, murders and other disruptive occurrences” as circumstances which instigated moves, as well as population expansion.

Garfield includes oral histories such as that of the De’cuhd-tan clan who founded Angoon when they built the “End-of-the-(Beaver)-Trail-House” after being led to the site by a beaver. Garfield also provides brief inventories of cultural artifacts, such as “a large feast dish representing the swimming beaver their ancestors saw, a wooden Raven hat set with abalone and a magnificently carved bowl in the shape of a sea urchin.” Some of the stories are illustrations of how an animal came to the aid of a group and thusly became their house crest; others document events that inspired a group to move, such as adultery or murder.

Garfield is writing to explain the events that have lead to the present composition of the Tlingit tribes of Angoon, Alaske. Among the Tlingit of Angoon, there are seven different tribes. Two of these tribes are from the Raven phratry, the other five clans are members of the Eagle phratry.

The stories that Garfield includes give the origins of the clans’ names and also how they came to be located at a particular place. The names of the clans are also important to land ownership. According to Tlingit legal theory, bays, streams and other productive areas are the private property of certain house groups of local divisions of clans”(p.451). New clans are usually the result of migration of individual clan members.

Garfield also mentions that a towns growth is due to three things: 1) the desire of brother-in-laws to live in the same town; 2) a house head whose sister’s husband also lived in the community and who had his nieces and nephews close to him to help out; and 3) the accessibility to resources. Many of the clans were attracted to areas near the bay because it was abundant in hunting and fishing. When a clan abandons a territory, even though their name may still imply that they live in the area, their rights to the land are forfeited. Transfers of property were also practiced in order to repay a debt to another clan. Garfield gave the example of the Ganaxe’di, who gave their house and home-sites in Angoon and Sitkoh Bay to the De’cita’n to compensate for murder.

This article give interesting accounts of how the Tlingit members came to be located at their present site. Garfield did this through their legendary stories.

Through culture and biological means, humankind adapts to heat and cold, and all manner of environments. Gladwin discusses the limitations of human biological and physiological adaptation, and introduces culture as an adaptive means. Gladwin incorporates information from various disciplines and raises issues to be addressed further. In so doing, he highlights problems in approaching this subject.

According to Gladwin’s research, these human biophysical and cultural adaptations are complimentary, but to a point, both are limited. Herein lies their connection. Where the human body is taxed to acclimate and accommodate to climate within a particular environment, cultural means can supplement adaptation. For example, in hot climates one may remove clothing (cultural component), until no clothing remains. Hereafter, the human body must cope with excessive heat. If the body cannot fully accommodate the climate, then once again, humans must employ cultural innovation, for example, protective clothing or shelter to shade from the sun, in order to survive. The same is true with cold adapted peoples, where culture (clothing, shelter, fire) supplements biophysical adaptations (adipose tissue, stocky stature). Gladwin also discusses in some detail, particular advantages conferred by physical stature, or clothing (or lack thereof) in particular climates.

Indeed, Gladwin draws from varied disciplines, and supports his findings appropriately. He supports his statements amply with examples, and offers a disclaimer as well, noting his reservation regarding the dearth of information on this particular subject, thereby necessitating further investigation. First, Gladwin furnishes some background information on metabolic and biological processes to clarify the ensuing discussion. He follows with a survey of clothing’s function, property and functionality of stature and its efficacy, distribution of populations with specific statures and particularities of those situations, and concludes that both cultural and biophysical conditions must be examined to understand the relation between humans and climate.

Gladwin found that humans use cultural means to deal with extremely cold climates, physiological adaptation to deal with extremely hot climates, and a mixture of the two changes for climates in between. He portrays humans as the most adaptable of all animals due to their ability to live in climates ranging from the extremes of hot and cold, but notes that maintaining a constant body temperature is an essential human characteristic.

Possible physiological changes that could potentially offer adaptation to very cold climates include an increased metabolic rate, a diversion of energy from “growth and maturation,” and accumulation of an increased fat layer. Except for the increased fat layer, the others changes were not consistently proven to occur Gladwin said. More “consistent and effective” cultural methods were used instead to deal with cold climates. Fitted clothing, houses, and fire were all discussed as cultural ways of getting and retaining heat in cold climates.

Gladwin found that culture cannot do much to overcome the difficulties of warm, humid climates and physiological adaptations were needed to allow people to live in these conditions. “The only consistent adaptation is in clothing; but this adaptation consists primarily in taking more and more off, and when you have removed it all and are still too hot; culture can only throw up its hands and pass the ball back to nature,” wrote Gladwin. In very hot, humid climates, consistently very little clothing was worn.

Gladwin suggests that physical changes which would raise the ratio of skin area for cooling, to body volume would be adaptive in producing less heat. Either an overall reduction in size or a decrease in weight with a slender tall body will meet this criterion, with examples being “Nilotic type of Negroes” and pigmies, respectively.

In warm dry climates with more radiation and less shade, such as in Arabia more clothing is worn; particularly white “loosely draped garments.” Gladwin explains that in low humidity this still allows perspiration to evaporate while decreasing the absorption of sunlight. Gladwin writes, “white cotton cloth absorbs only 29% of the radiant energy of sunlight, while the skin of a Negro absorbs 84%; even the skin of a blonde European absorbs 57%.”

In this article, Gladwin shows evidence for and against every physiological change he mentions. He finds that cultural adaptations to climate are conclusive and constant, but that these changes cannot themselves fully explain how people live in hot climates. While he is fairly convinced that some physiological explanations are sound, Gladwin also cautions that his conclusions “can be of value only as suggestions for further investigation; and are no way definitive.”

In this article, Wendell Hadlock examines the prevailing view of the nature of aboriginal warfare in the Northeastern Woodland region. He questions whether Indians entered into wars of extermination prior to the abnormal conditions produced by the fur trade and the rivalry between the French and English to dominate North America.

He analyzes records from the earliest French explorers who noted ongoing violent conflicts between hunting-gathering tribes and those that practiced agriculture. He suggests these conflicts were motivated by appropriation of territory, but sometimes for glory alone. For example the farming, Iroquoian-speaking Huron appeared to have been expanding northward at the time of arrival of the first French explorers in 1534, but were displaced by hunting Algonkian-speaking tribes. He describes numerous examples from early explorers in which various tribes appear to be conduct sport hunts with rival tribes as game.

Hadlock’s discussion suggests that Indian warfare actually only changed in degree of intensity after the establishment of the European fur trade. The aboriginal ethnic rivalries appear to intensify as agricultural groups, such as the Mohawk, attempted to expand their territories to both garner more farmable land and to control European trade. Wars were now waged at least in part, to extort and plunder valuable furs and other trade goods. However, the only inter-Indian war of extermination that he describes involves the Iroquois, who gained control of important trade routes and thus trade materials, nearly annihilating their ancient enemies and trade rivals, the Huron. Hadlock concludes that warfare itself was common among the pre-contact Indians, being fought largely for prestige. The nature of warfare grew in intensity during the European fur trade, now largely motivated by economics. The addition of firearms only increased the horror of aboriginal war. Those wars were so destructive that when the time came to unite against the common enemy, the white man, the Indians were no longer an effective fighting force.

This article explains the causes and significance of warfare among the Algonkian-speaking groups of the northeastern United States during the pre-contact and contact periods. The author draws heavily on accounts of early explorers and missionaries, particularly Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain, and describes in detail the relations between numerous tribes of the region. Hadlock is particularly interested in contrasting the war practices of the hunting and agricultural groups because they had different motives. He also assesses the influence of European contact on the warfare of these tribes, in particular the effects of the fur trade, and explains the extent to which warfare was an “integral part” of the native culture pattern.

Hadlock claims that warfare in this Northeastern area did not occur on a regular continual basis nor was it ever large. The reason for this is that these tribes were relatively small hunter/gatherers who didn’t have the “resources necessary for intensive warfare.” The author compares the motives of warfare between these smaller groups to those of larger agricultural groups. Due to the intensity of their nomadic lifestyles, the hunting groups did not have time to devote to warfare on a large, organized scale. Rather, their warfare focused on retaliation and personal glory, rather than on gaining territory. In contrast, agricultural tribes had more leisure time to devote to warfare on a more organized level. Also the change to agriculture resulted in increased population, which then created a desire to “expand and control new lands.”

The author emphasizes the great influence of guns, claiming that the introduction of these weapons by the whites around the time of the fur trade caused the Indians to enter into “a new phase of warfare.” The author adds that this “new phase,” which was brought about by the whites, has “given us a distorted picture of the Indian and his purposes of war.”

Irving Hallowell’s article is an argument that oral narratives have equal, if not more incite in studying the phenomenon of man. Hallowell attempts to describe the advantages that oral narratives offer and refute studying exclusively literary history. His primary explanation why oral narratives have been neglected is because of tradition. He claims that in the past, records of oral narratives have taken second to that of primary literary documents. His evidence for such a claim is that though all peoples have an oral form of literature, not all societies are literate. Furthermore, oral narratives such as myths express meaning that a native often cannot translate into forms of literary account. The psychological importance of these myths is otherwise uncommunicatable. Hallowell continues by saying that oral narratives represent a form of dramatic presentation that is omitted in a literary context. Finally, he stresses the importance of interpreting the psychological significance in comparison with other data.

The essay is not too bold to assume that such oral narratives are complete in conveying the meanings within a culture’s perspective. They must be balanced by the traditional literary accounts and other data. Together, they are capable of presenting a more thorough investigation into a culture. Ultimately, a psychological approach is most clarified in the context of oral and written sources. Hallowell’s examination calls for the integration of oral narratives into the preexisting set of cultural data. This paper is helpful in supporting the need of oral narratives and validating their use. Any individuals interested in the usefulness of oral narratives as a credible source of cultural data would benefit from this essay.

The author of this article believes that the study of oral narratives has been neglected. He urges that these materials be incorporated into anthropological analysis along with other cultural data, on the assumption that the closer study of myths in particular can provide a window into the psychology of a culture and thus deepen our knowledge of human nature.

Hallowell presumes that once the oral narratives of a culture are recorded they are put to little use until a professional folklorist comes along and deems them fit to use. He argues that if the study of oral histories is to be relevant to our understanding of culture and investigations of human psychology, then oral narratives should become the primary focus of anthropologists. He points out that what people choose to talk about is always important for our understanding of them, and the narratives they choose to pass on from generation to generation must be important for a fully-rounded study of their culture.

Hallowell also warns against taking the stories and myths of a culture at face value and reminds us that cultural context must be understood in order to assign accurate meaning in cultural terms. Animal characters, for example, should not naively be assumed to comprise a categorical contrast to human beings. Investigations may reveal that animals and humans are considered one ambiguous class of beings instead, especially if metamorphosis is considered possible.

Hallowell reminds us that the specific problem in the case of oral narratives is to be able to look behind scenes of dramatic action and discern what is both culturally significant and relevant to the psychological makeup of the people.

John Honigmann’s article addresses the increase of witch-fear of the Kaska, people native to Western Canada. Honigmann offers evidence of the practice of witch hunting, and several possible explanations of the recent increase.

Honigmann’s argument is constructed by first offering evidence that the practice of witch hunting does in fact occur by using first hand accounts of visitors and natives, reports of rumors, and experts from written documents by government investigators. After proving that witch-fear and witch-hunting has increased Honigmann takes a structural-functionalist stance on the issue. He states that witch-fear functions to relieve the anxiety and hostility generated by an increase in social stresses. “Witch fear may be diagnosed as a reaction to social stress[es]” such as influx of strangers, new illnesses, and a basic lack of strong kinship ties. His explanation as to why the effects of acculturation have manifested in the form of witch-fear vary from a predisposed acceptance of witchcraft beliefs, to general personality factors which provide a degree of readiness to react with anxiety when traditional solutions cannot be applied to the new problems associated with the arrival of trappers, miners, and government officials.

This article would be of interest to individuals researching the effects of cultural developments instigated by drastic change especially when the population studied is predisposed to having problems adapting.

In the early 1920’s a number of deaths rumored to be the results of witch fear came to the attention of the larger world when a young Indian boy was found tied up and left to die on a frozen lake. The stories centered around the Kaska of British Columbia, Kaska being a term used to indicate several contingent tribes in the area who shared the regional Athapaskan dialect. While these tribal groups had “since aboriginal times” shared a belief in shamanism and the possibility of sorcery, Honigmann argues that the murders of “witches” were sparked off by reactions to white contact and were not customary Kaskan conduct.

The first outside contact with the Kaska was made shortly after 1800 when fur traders came into the area, followed shortly by gold miners. Honigmann points out that missionaries did not follow this first wave of white people into the Kaskan region, as was typical in other areas. By 1876 the white population in the drainage basin had reached nearly two thousand; Honigmann estimates that the Kaskan population probably never numbered more than three or four hundred people. As a result of this relatively massive influx of people, the Kaska had difficulty reaching the same level of success in their hunts as they had previously; they came to depend more and more on trapping for furs and selling these for “white food”; and they began to have less faith in “the efficacy of charms, songs for luck, and other hunting ceremonials.” They also began to suffer from illnesses introduced by the outsiders.

Honigmann asserts that these conditions of social disintegration reacted with certain aspects of Kaskan society so as to produce outbreaks of witch-fear. In a psychological analysis of the “Kaska personality,” Honigmann outlines the early childhood experience among the Kaska, depicting an infancy full of attention and affection, broken off suddenly near age three and replaced by “the pattern of emotional aloofness that is characteristic of most interpersonal relationships within the society.”

Typically the victim was strung up by the feet and left in the woods until he or she had died of starvation, although there are stories of other manners of torture. Honigmann’s theory is that situational stress combined with the innate anxiety of a Kaska upbringing to create an outbreak of fear and blame that the people were unable to deal with rationally. Surprisingly, quite a few of the alleged witch killings were of children. Citing the Kaska’s “timidity,” Honigmann reasons that children, unable to defend themselves, simply became the target for the overstressed adults of the tribe.

Hsu, an anthropology professor at Northwestern University, uses Chinese relationship terms to demonstrate his technique for comparing kinship system terminology. He says that this technique can be used in any study of kinship terminology throughout the world and asserts it has obvious importance for understanding social organization. This is due to the close correlation between kinship terminology and social organization.

Hsu states that part of the problem with past studies of Chinese relationship terms is disagreement over whether the focus should be on the literary language, which is the same throughout China, or on the spoken language which can vary greatly from one part of the country to the next. Because Hsu’s technique substitutes non-phonetic symbols for the actual terms, comparisons focus on the patterns inherent in each systems rather than on terminological differences. For example, Hsu lists ten different Chinese systems of kinship terms, and even though the terms are all different, his technique shows that the underlying patterns are remarkably similar.

Hsu’s technique saves time when analyzing a system of kinship terminology, and also shows how a particular system stands in relation to others. Hsu provides two diagrams and two tables to illustrate his technique, and includes a bibliography.

This article is about the technique for studying the Chinese relationship terms. Hsu said that the problem with comparing two relationship systems is that it the comparison is often obscured by linguistic differences and that his technique insures that it is not. The problem that arises is that some areas have different dialects but have the same literary language, which is the same throughout China.

This technique puts non-phonetic symbols in the place of actual terms, such as separate alphabetic letters. The letters must have no phonetic relation to the actual term that in use. He uses the word (tata) or father and (jeje) or grandfather for his examples. He demonstrates his examples in two diagrams in the article. He also shows two tables of relationship terms for people associated with the Ego clan. One of the tables is the comparison of relationship terms for men and women born into the Ego’s clan, and the other is the comparison of relationship terms for women married into the Ego’s clan.

Hsu says that this technique will be a time saver and will allow the field worker and the theoretician to determine in a few moments where a particular system of terminology stand in relation to all others.

Gilbert N. Lewis compares evidence for two hypotheses about the beginning of civilization in America, combining them to create his own hypothesis. Over forty references within his article support his argument. Unfortunately, Professor Lewis died before his draft paper could be revised and thus did not have the chance to respond to criticisms.

Lewis begins by discrediting the theory that American Indian civilization came to America from Asia by way of the Bering Strait. He agrees that the land bridge was traversed upon, “perhaps several times, and in both directions,” but he does not believe enough supporting evidence exists to establish northern Asia as the origin of American civilization. He supports his belief by arguing that the variety and number of languages spoken by natives of North and South America could not have developed in the short time the American continents would have been inhabited according to this theory. Though supporters of the land bridge theory had suggested that languages changed faster among American Indian cultures, Lewis asserts that Native American languages are resistant to change and are well conserved. Archeological evidence of skeletal remains and artifacts discovered in the Americas, which predate the land bridge, are also used to discredit this theory.

Assuming that the natives of North and South America inhabited the Americas well before it was possible to cross the Bering Strait by way of a land bridge, a second question then arises. How did American civilizations develop? Lewis looks at developments in later American culture and addresses the old question of whether the civilizations of the Old and New World developed independently or whether the cultural elements diffused from one another. Comparisons of New World civilizations, such as the Mayan and Incan cultures, and Old World civilizations, namely those developing during the Bronze Age, demonstrate a fairly parallel chronology of development. The cultural development of agriculture, arithmetic, metalworking, pottery, musical instruments, and animal husbandry are found in both chronologies. Finding the same invention or technology in two apparently isolated regions leads observers to seek a connection, find the routes of travel, and determine a point of origin. In other words, Lewis is leaning toward a pattern of diffusion.

Lewis goes on to discuss the civilizations of Mexico and Peru, which he believes are the two Parent American Civilizations. Though similar in some respects, these two civilizations are also distinctive, leading Lewis to pose the question, “To what extent [are] the common features of the two great branches of American culture …due to a common genesis, and to what extent to later borrowing…”

Lewis proposes two hypotheses in response, “…Hypothesis A, the essentials of American civilization were brought from the Old World; or Hypothesis B, American culture was a purely autochthonous development.” To support Hypothesis A, Lewis mentions four cultural items existing in both the Old and New World before the beginning of agriculture: the bow and arrow, polished stone implements, boats, and dogs. The independent development of the same four cultural items within these civilizations is highly unlikely according to Lewis. Some additional examples offered to support diffusion are a bronze ax found both in ancient Egypt and pre-Columbian America, and a gourd with a star-shaped cover used to hold lime for mixing with betel for chewing found both in the South Pacific islands and South America. Many cultural practices, such as adopting the constellation of Pleiades as a worshipped ancestor, are found in both geographic areas. He also mentions J. Hornell’s study of the sailing craft of Oceania and the South American sailing balsas. The crafts are so similar in construction and rigging that diffusion seems apparent. There is no other trace of this type of sailing craft appearing along the stretches of the American west coast, indicating that the diffusion of culture most likely did not come from the Bering Strait.

Hypothesis B is supported by some examples given by Nordenskiold. He relates the captivity and taming of wild animals in Indian culture to the domestication of llama and alpaca in Peru and the so-called cultivation of their wild relatives, the guanaco and the vicuna, and sees this as the development of animal husbandry. Also, the elaborate methods of removing poison from wild vegetables using a water-tight basket to boil the foods in water is thought to lead to the baking of shaped clay to create pottery. Though this argument does not indicate why these activities are not subject to diffusion, he does use the apparent evolution of invention as a basis for his argument.

Since Lewis is convinced by both these hypotheses, he wraps up his article with his own hypothesis, Hypothesis C. The final hypothesis says that natives of South America were the pioneers of modern civilization. By using the examples found throughout the article, Lewis pieces together a chronology of the events leading to the development of civilization. Noting the independent development of alloys in the Andes, the accuracy of a calendar indicating a date before Old World history begins, and a diffusion of ideas occurring among South America, the Pacific Islands, and southern Asia, Lewis writes a detailed and fairly convincing argument in support of Hypothesis C.

Lewis, Gilbert N. The Beginning Of Civilization In America. American Jan.-March, 1947 Vol.49(1):1-24.

Human adaptation to the New World, revealed to anthropologists through the examination of artifacts created and exchanged by human beings during the Pleistocene, offers interpretive explanations about the origin of civilizations in prehistory. Exploring the traditional theory of Homo sapiens in Asia migrating across the Bering Strait into America is essential to understand cultural development in the New World. Geological dating techniques aid the discovery by providing the elements of time and space in which to view prehistoric civilizations. The beginning of civilization is a topic surrounded by a magnitude of evidence, which Gilbert Lewis attempts to uncover.

The beginning of civilization may have originated on separate continents, or the idea transferred through migrating people from the Old to the New World. Even though the two hypotheses are contradictory, a third hypothesis develops incorporating them into one. However, Lewis indicates the beginning of civilization occurred in America, and he provides indirect and direct evidence to support the hypothesis. .

People in America developed agricultural techniques completely independent of European influence. The discovery of material objects found in developmental stages in America provides evidence that the artifacts are inventions created in the New World. Cultural elements of civilization discovered in the New World descended from humans in the Old World. The use of boats and instruments by civilizations in America are traits that originated in Europe. Ideas found in folklore and food preparation and cultivation support the idea that civilization began in the Old World. These two hypotheses can work together in order to create a third hypothesis. It states that South Americans who developed Neolithic arts, which were then carried over to the Old World across the South Pacific, created modern civilization.

Exploration of artifacts left behind by prehistoric civilizations has enabled anthropologists to connect the Old and New World prior to historic accounts. These hypotheses explored by Lewis provide insight to the discovery of the beginning of civilization.

Loeb, Edwin M. and Broek, Jan O. M. Social Organization and the Long House in Southeast Asia. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol. 49:414-425.

Loeb and Broek describe the correlation that exists between forms of descent organization and the long house institution among peoples of Southeast Asia, including the Tibeto-Burma Kachins, the Assam and the Mon-Khmer Khasi. A long house, also called a communal house or multiple-dwelling house, is described as being up to 100 feet in length, partitioned off about every seven feet to accommodate from five to twenty families, each with its own fireplace and often its own entrance. The authors portray this structure as similar to the long house of the Iroquois in the United States. Two other types of houses were also found by the authors: a multiple-family house that had no partitions for individual families and usually only one hearth, and the single-family house. Professor Broek is identified as a particular authority on communal houses and the authors also cite numerous references and provide a lengthy bibliography. The goal of this article is to advance the hypothesis that the long house is a “direct function of lineages and clans” and that its specific form corresponds to lineage type (patrilineal or matrilineal).

Evidence to support this hypothesis is drawn from many Southeast Asian societies. For example, among the Minangkabau, lineage members all live within one long house under the direction of the brother of the eldest female. To demonstrate the correlation between lineage type and house form, Loeb and Broek map the locations where matrilineate, matrilocal residence, patrilineate or bilateral social organizations are found, and the type of houses associated with them. Information on where communal houses are still located and places where they were formerly used, as well as places where both communal and single-family houses are used and where there are no communal houses present are included. The map appears to support the hypothesis that there is a correlation between clan social organization and the use of the long house.

The article concludes with a brief discussion of migration theories for the Southeast Asian area. Geography, as well as trait distributions of language, human physical characteristics, “racial type,” and culture traits such as rice ceremonies are used to illustrate some proposed diffusion and migration scenarios as these correlate with long house distribution. P. K. Benedict has hypothesized that people who spoke Indonesian languages migrated through Champa to the Indies, and although the authors conclude that there is much evidence to support this, they believe that there were probably several migrations rather than a single event.

Loeb, M. Edwin and Brock, O.M., Jan. Social Organizations and the Long House in Southeast Asia, American Anthropologist, July-Sept., 1947 (45(3), 414-425

Loeb and Broek focus on the styles of communal housing shared among peoples living in different parts of Southeast Asia. Specifically, the authors identify and describe two different housing styles.

One housing style: being the multiple-dwelling house. To anthropologists this is a long house. The long house acquired its name by the Iroquois Indians who before the 19th century had used this style of house to live in. The long houses usually reach up to 100 feet in length and are divided at seven foot intervals. By dividing the house this way, up to twenty families may live and share the longhouse together. The houses of the North American Indians are comparable to those of Southeast Asian societies in more ways than one. For example, a woman who watches over the houses organizes the houses in both regions.

The second forms of ling quarters among the Southeast Asian societies are the multiple dwelling houses. In these houses space is not divided into sections. For example, there may only be one hearth for the entire house and the families that occupy it.

From evidence of the mainland of Southeast Asia to the islands it has been found that longhouses appear scattered throughout “advanced” civilizations. Three are many theories of how this kind of living became known and the cultural reasons behind these houses being scattered throughout the Asian land. The authors refer to “Theories of independent development or of diffusion.”

Mead, Margaret. On the Implications for Anthropology of the Gesell-Ilg Approach to Maturation. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol. 49:69-77.

Margaret Mead’s essay considers the applicability of employing the Gesell-Ilg model of human maturation as a cross-cultural theoretical matrix. While acknowledging the potential pitfalls of applying psychological hypotheses in an ethnographic environment, she concludes that the Gesell-Ilg model may provide a useful framework for studying the specific developmentally normalizing practices of different cultures and their impact upon the predominance of different personality types within each culture.

Mead begins her discussion by warning against the dangers of approaching fieldwork with an overly strong attachment to a conceptual framework taken from current psychological research. Such an approach, she contends, may blind the fieldworker to the richness of the culture she is studying. With this precautionary note in mind, she stresses that the ethnographer would be misguided in attempting to validate or refute the Gesell-Ilg model. Instead, she suggests that three core concepts of the model, that human maturation possesses a definite rhythmic sequence, proceeds from periods of consolidation, to periods of expansion, to periods of new consolidation, and expresses patterned individual differences through differing emphases on different phases of growth, may prove useful guides in the fieldworker’s analysis of cross-cultural practices that temporalize individual development. Specifically, Mead anticipates the evaluation of cultural expectations of development according to their relative correspondence with the innate growth pattern attributed to all humans by the Gesell-Ilg model. By contrasting such cultural practices Mead hopes ultimately to illuminate the mechansisms whereby specific personality types become culturally dominant.

A general acquaintance with Mead’s work will significantly help the reader to contextualize this article, which will interest those seeking a more detailed knowledge of how Mead believed cultural anthropology could be applied to issues of human development. While she does not offer a specific study to serve as an example in this brief essay, the reader gains a clearer understanding of the in depth empirical methodology which she envisions as necessary for the development of her own theory concerning the relationship between culture and personality.

Mead, Margaret. On the Implications for Anthropology of the Gesell-Ilg Approach to Maturation. American Anthropologist 1947. Vol. 49:69-77.

In this article, Margaret Mead discusses the usefulness of applying the Gesell-Ilg approach to maturation in anthropological fieldwork. Gesell and Ilg conducted scientific studies in which they were able to determine a sequence for the rate of maturation in middle-class children from New Haven. It was discovered that there were certain “nodal points” of maturation that took place at specific age points in the children. While Mead cautions that the technique will not be completely accurate when used in the field due to its lack of controls, she feels that the approach can still be useful in anthropology. In the field, there would be problems with time, the amount of staff members, the use of recording devices, and with sample sizes. These factors would prevent any research in the field from having the same level of authority as the Gesell-Ilg study was able to achieve.

Mead feels that the best use of the Gesell-Ilg technique in anthropological field research is to provide a comparative model. This could be used to assess the actual rate of development that children in various cultures undergo in relation to their “actual innate maturational capacity.” Such a comparison will illustrate the cultural reasons that children develop at different rates in different cultures. These can be expected to include the following aspects. (1) The standard sequence of a maturation sequence may be distorted by cultural practices. For example, the Arapesh do not allow children to crawl until they grow teeth. (2) It can have periods of development that vary in the amount of pressure towards development. An example given is of children being sent to school at age six. They are pressured to developed whether or not they are actually ready to begin a new stage of development. (3) Or it can have a culturally patterned growth rate that emphasizes certain phases of development. This is a hypothetical situation that Mead feels the need to address because of its possible usefulness for future research.

Mead realizes in this article that this technique still needs to be tested further to determine its true usefulness, but she feels that it is a very promising technique that could be very valuable throughout the future. It could possibly be used to make comparison of varying cultures’ maturation styles with other parts of their culture, such as child-rearing practices, to discover patterns in maturation. Also, it might be able to help us to better understand the problems of sex and class typing, and possibly it could give us a better approach to the study of social change. She urges field researchers to constantly be looking for new ways to analyze their research.

Murdock, George Peter. Bifurcate Merging, A Test of Five Theories. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol. 3 56-68

George Peter Murdock’s article, Bifurcate Merging, A Test of Five Theories, discusses through statistical means a person’s consanguinealy line of descent. The “test” the title refers to are the effects of the methods of W.H.R. Rivers, H. Lowie, A.L. Kroeber, E. Sapir, and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown using a statistical method. The analysis is of data collected from 221 various societies consisting of: 62 from Africa, 28 from Eurasia, 66 from North American, 50 from Oceania, and 15 from South America. However, the test is limited to male-speaking terms for female relatives because those are the only terms available to be used.

W. H. R. Rivers, developer of one of the earlier theories attributed bifurcate merging to the influence of moieties. Moieties consist of “the same social group a lineal kinsman and his sibling of the same sex, and segregate in different groups collateral relatives related to Ego through connecting relatives of different.” The problem with Rivers theory is it does not account for societies without moieties.

H. Lowie tried to adjust for this problem by introducing the influence of exogamy and whether or not the rule of out-marriage is applicable to moieties or to sibs, lineages and other social groups. The results show bifurcate merging as having a tendency to actually be associated with exogamy. Nevertheless, lacking in the absence of exogamy. This is also the problem with Lowie’s theory. However, it is still superior to Rivers’ theory.

The next theory, by A.L. Kroeber, is that of unilinear descent being the suffice component in producing bifurcate merging. According to the test data, Kroeber theory yields the strongest statistical results. Therefore, at this point, it looks as if this theory would make the strongest case out of the five theories.

E. Sapir’s theory is based on the idea or rule of preferential mating. This being prominent amongst the levirate and sororate, may produce a similar effect as with the previous theory. The statistical results proved otherwise. Statistically, the results were so low that it could occur through mere chance—this is the main problem with Sapir’s theory.

Our final theory and test is that of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown is very similar to Sapir as with the levirate and sororate. In this instance the results are the same: too low of a statistical factor be of any significance.

Therefore, in conclusion, Kroeber’s theory is most effective in producing bifurcate merging based on the statistical data gathered from the test. The article would be of interest to students who would like to apply an exact science of math to an anthropological study.

Murdock, George Peter. Bifurcate Merging, A Test of Five Theories. American Anthropologist 1947. Vol. 49:56-68.

George Peter Murdock profiles five theories that other researchers have proposed regarding bifurcate merging, intending to lay groundwork for further publications in the future. His goal is to test the validity of each theory based on qualitative and quantitative data. The quantitative test comes from a comparative statistical analysis of social organization and kinship from 221 societies across the globe.

Murdock first defines bifurcate merging, noting that a person’s relatives must be distinguished as either lineal or collateral. Lineal relatives are in the direct line of descendents, such as grandparents, parents, children, and grandchildren. Collateral relatives are those outside the direct line of descendents, such as aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, and nephews. When a collateral relative is related to an individual either through a male connecting relative or through a female relative, they are “bifurcated” by the sex of the intervening relative. When the sex of an individual is indicated in kinship terminology, the system involves bifurcate merging.

Some kinship terminology distinguishes between lineal and collateral relatives, while some does not. Some kinship terminology distinguishes between relatives related to an individual through a man or a woman, while others do not. For this reason, four distinct kin term possibilities result: “bifurcate collateral,” “bifurcate merging,” “lineal,” and “generation.” Bifurcate collateral terminology is when collateral relatives are distinguished from lineal relatives, and both groups are also distinguished from each other on the basis of the sex of the connecting relative. This involves a separate term for father and father’s brother, as well as a separate term for the mother’s brother. Bifurcate merging recognizes the separation of the sexes, but does not distinguish between collateral relatives. This means that collateral relatives of the same sex of an individual, a collateral relative related through a same sex relative of an individual, and a same sex lineal relative and collateral relative are equated to lineal terminology. However, collateral relatives of the opposite sex of a lineal relative or related through a lineal relative of the opposite sex are separated through distinct terminology. If the individual is male, there will be a distinction in terminology between his father’s sister, mother’s brother, sister’s son, and sister’s daughter. He will then equate his mother’s sister with mother, his father’s brother with father, his brother’s son with son, and his brother’s daughter with daughter. A culture that recognizes collateral relatives, but not bifurcation uses lineal terminology. American culture uses lineal terminology, where there is a distinction between lineal and collateral relatives and the terms are used for both the father and mother’s side of the family. Finally, not recognizing collateral terminology or bifurcation results in generation terminology, in which the terms for lineal relatives are extended to collateral relatives. In this case, terms such as mother, father, sister, and brother are extended to aunts, uncles, and cousins.

After a complex explanation of the four types of kinship terminologies, Murdock begins his test of five theories. The first theory, that of Rivers, attributes bifurcate merging to the influence of moieties. “Moieties include in the same social group a lineal kinsman and his sibling of the same sex, and segregate in different groups collateral relatives related to [an individual] through connecting relatives of different sex.” Murdock presents the results from the test of this theory as a table, separating the results of societies with moieties from those societies without moieties. Rivers assumes that the occurrence of bifurcate merging in societies without moieties is due to the former existence of moieties in these societies. For this reason, Murdock regards this theory as potentially valid, but within limits.

The second theory was established by Robert Lowie. He associated the presence or absence of bifurcate merging with the presence or absence of exogamy. Without knowing how rules of exogamy apply within different lineages or social groups, there is no way to determine that bifurcate merging is affected by its presence or absence. The quantitative data presented in the table for this theory constitutes a more positive result than was achieved by Rivers’ hypothesis. Murdock regards this theory as valid within limits.

Alfred Kroeber’s theory is that the existence of unilinear groupings of descendents in itself creates bifurcate merging. In most cases, the great majority of peoples are both unilinear and exogamous at the same time, or neither unilinear nor exogamous. In Kroeber’s hypothesis, a group that is unilinear and not exogamous would use bifurcate merging terminology, whereas a group that is exogamous and not linear would not. Murdock’s quantitative results show that Kroeber’s study is more satisfactory than that of Lowie’s because the coefficients are more positive. Kroeber’s theory also has higher results than Lowie’s theory. In sum, Kroeber’s theory receives the most substantial statistical confirmation and support of any other theory presented in the paper.

Finally, Edward Sapir’s theory associated bifurcate merging with preferential mating, but his statistical results are so near zero that the theory cannot be validated quantitatively at all. A.R. Radcliffe-Brown similarly accepts the correlation between preferential mating and bifurcate merging, but did not regard one as the cause and the other as the effect. Radcliffe-Brown’s theory is discarded on the same basis as Sapir’s theory.

Murdock concludes his paper by supporting Kroeber’s theory, explaining that his analysis will be further supported through his theoretical considerations and will appear in a future publication. The final pages of the article show the data list of every group studied and the results of each group.

The author’s objective is to present the structure of Jicarilla obligations and practices between affinal relatives and to show several exceptions to illustrate the flexibility in a system that allows for considerable choice. Opler describes the changes in residence, responsibilities, behavior, speech and movement that marriage involves, in particular for men. A salient practice is the strict rule of avoidance and use of polite-form with the wife’s relatives of her and her parent’s generation. For a Jicarilla man these relationships imply personal, economic and social consideration. The kinship terms employed by the newly married towards his in-laws indicate deference and obligation. For the newly married woman, who does not have to support her in-laws, the same rules for the treatment of affinal relatives apply. These formalities continue to the life span of those between whom they are initiated.

As Opler points out, terminology alone is not the infallible key to the relationship involved because while there is a definite system of behavior, there are also modifications to accommodate individual need, desire or special circumstance. While some relations entail the immediate rule of avoidance and the use of the polite-form, with distant in-laws is a purely individual matter that indicates favor and politeness. They may request or not to use it according to their sentiments, interpretations and their previous relationship with the newly wed. Making predictions in advance, the author concludes, is difficult and demands contextual information and revision.

The article is primarily descriptive. The author’s extensive and localized fieldwork and transcriptions from interviews with different informants support the arguments. The evidence is presented in a clear, orderly and readable manner.

Opler, Morris Edward. Rule and Practice in the Behavior Between Jicarilla Apache Affinal Relatives. The American Anthropologist. 1947 Vol. 49:453-462.

This article details the rules of polite behavior in Jicarilla Apache society between married persons and their affinal relatives. The study focuses on “polite speech” and avoidance practices as well as special obligations by the son or daughter-in-law to his/her parents-in-law and their kin. The author has done extensive research on the Jicarilla Apache Indians, and draws references from five of his previously published articles on culture, myth, and kinship systems.

Avoidance means no physical or eye contact with specific members of the spouse’s immediate family. Polite speech refers to terms of address and manner of speaking. In the case of men, these behavior restrictions would involve the mother-in-law, her sister and half-sister, and the sister of the father-in-law. For a woman, the reverse is true. At the time a couple marries, additional affinal relatives may choose whether avoidance or polite speech is to be required in the future, the form taken remaining unchanged between the two parties for the rest of their lives. The relatives involved are a man’s mother-in-law’s female cousins and a woman’s father-in-law’s male cousins. Avoidance and polite speech both show deference and are especially directed toward the spouse’s close family. Distant affinal relatives normally do not require either form of behavior and under certain circumstances the rules can be softened if the married man or woman had a close relationship with a near affinal relative prior to marriage. Behavior rules are equivalent for men and women, the only exception being that the husband goes to live with the wife’s family and is expected to help support them while the wife has no such requirement toward her in-laws. However, the husband’s parents can impose social pressure on the wife for the sake of their son. For example, through visits to their son’s home, they can assure themselves the wife is taking proper care of him and his household.

Opler notes that these respect customs were still practiced at the time of his study and that the Jicarilla Apache “have a well-worked-out system for regulating behavior and obligations between relatives”. He includes quotes of some of the Apache people he interviewed.

This Radcliffe-Brown article basically attempts to re-explain his opinion that Lewis Morgan was writing about human progress during his time and not human evolution. Radcliffe-Brown starts out the article by attempting to prove his critics wrong about his claims. He refutes against the claims of Leslie White who stated in an earlier essay that Morgan was a social evolutionist. Moreover, Radcliffe-Brown also goes on to criticize Boas and his school of thought that structural evolutionary studies had no importance in Anthropology.

The first paragraph in the article sets the tone for the rest of the body of work. Radcliffe-Brown immediately attempts to disprove White by stating that White did not make a distinction between the theory of social evolution and the theory of progress. He then goes onto say that because of this failure of White’s, his claims and refutations against Radcliffe-Brown are not valid. After spending a little more time on White and his incompetence, Radcliffe-Brown moves on to explain his understanding of the theory of social evolution.

Radcliffe-Brown cites Herbert Spencer as the founder of this school of thought. He cites passages from Spencer’s “Principles of Sociology” in order to explain to the reader what exactly this theory states. After completing this history lesson, Radcliffe-Brown then introduces the reader to the similarities and differences of social and cultural evolution. And at this point, starts his criticism of Boas and his school of thought. He attempts to present to the reader that contrary to Boasian thought, why social evolution is a viable study in Anthropology. He carries on this criticism up till the last paragraph of the article where he spends a few more lines refuting Leslie White’s claims and ideas about Morgan.

This article is written in a very pedantic and overconfident tone. Radcliffe-Brown completely attempts to trivialize the claims of reputable anthropologists such as Boas and White. The reader must read this article with a questioning mind and not blindly be influenced by Radcliffe-Brown’s powerful writing. However, the article does have some significance as it accurately portrays the climate in anthropology during the mid to late 40s. This article; therefore, is a fairly interesting reading that informs the reader a little bit about the personality of the writer.

This article was written by Radcliffe-Brown in order to clarify a statement that he had previously made in an address in 1940. Radcliffe-Brown had said that Lewis Morgan “believed, not in evolution but in progress, which he conceived as the steady material and moral improvement of mankind from crude stone implements and sexual promiscuity to the steam engines and monogamous marriage of Rochester, N. Y.” Leslie White had subsequently objected to this classification of Morgan, insisting that Morgan had actually been a social evolutionist. According to Radcliffe-Brown in this article, White misleadingly uses the terms social evolution and cultural evolution interchangeably when discussing Morgan’s theoretical standpoint. Radcliffe-Brown claims that White is not placing enough emphasis on distinctions between the two terms, that he is just attempting to put the social evolutionist label on Morgan, and that he has not fully attended to the context within which Radcliffe-Brown’s original statement was made.

To argue his point, Radcliffe-Brown distinguishes the concepts of society and culture. He explains that the study of a society is a study of “religions, laws, arts, etc., and their developments and changes” through the use of investigation and scientific method. A study of culture is the study of things like artifacts, languages and myths, which uses ethnologies and archaeology to collect its data. Radcliffe-Brown explains that the theories of social evolution and cultural evolution are not related, because they do not address the same types of information. He then goes on to explain that Morgan was neither a social or cultural evolutionist because he was writing about human progress in the tradition of Turgot and Ferguson, who had used terms like “savagery” and “barbarism” to explain the level of advancement that societies had reached. Radcliffe-Brown asserts that Morgan used his research to support these ethnocentric theories of “progress.”

Radcliffe-Brown uses this difference of opinion with White as a vehicle for a critique of American anthropology. The article shows Radcliffe-Brown’s critical feelings towards the idea of progress and also gives a clearer distinction between cultural and social evolution.

Slotkin’s article, On Possible Lack of Incest Regulations in Old Iran, mainly consists of excerpts of historic documents used to support his argument that exogamic regulations in Old Iran excluded incest. He concludes that both primary and secondary sources advocated next-of-kin marriages.

Slotkin has gathered extensive research by other people, but fails to offer any data supported by his own fieldwork. His argument that incestuous relationships did exist is solely constructed from the words of Greek, Roman, Syraic and Arabic scholars, but he fails to conclude that practice is or is not continuing at the time the article was written. He also fails to offer any explanations as to the reasons why or how the authors of his data reached the conclusions they did. Readers must question whether or not the information is outdated, as some sources date back to the sixth century B.C., or if the information presented as being factual was written as propaganda.

The article is constructed chronologically; each period of data is introduced by a short paragraph stating where the sources came from and who was believed to have written them. Slotkin draws the readers’ attention to the ambiguity of the classifications of people, the terms “Magi” and “Persian” seem to be used interchangeably, but Slotkin fails to make a stance regarding the reliability of his sources.

This article could be best used as a source of information of who wrote on incest relationships in Old Iran, the bibliography is quite extensive, but because the author offers only a very weak argument, and seems to just be providing an overview of the research available, I would be hesitant to use this article as anything other that a starting place for more in-depth research.

CLARITY RANKING: 2
ANN CROWE University of Georgia (Peter Brosius)

Slotkin, J. S. On A Possible Lack Of Incest Regulations in Old Iran. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol.49: 612-617

In this article, Slotkin offers a counter example to the anthropological assumption that a nuclear family incest taboo is essential for family life and thus universal. Slotkin argues that among Zoroastrians in Old Iran, not only was this incest prohibition lacking but also next-of-kin marriages were also actively preferred. This is documented for all Zoroastrians, not merely for priests and rulers.

Slotkin finds his earliest evidence in writings by the Greek Xanthus:

“…he says that the Magi cohabit with their mothers and their daughters, and according to law have intercourse with sisters; and also that the wives are common not by violence and stealth, but by mutual agreement, when one wants to marry the wife of another.”

Later evidence comes from the Greek and Latin Christian fathers who described incest as a requirement for priesthood, perhaps even part of an initiation ritual.

Sources ranging from indigenous Pahlavi texts (seventh century A.D.) to the Zoroastrians (Fourth to ninth Century A.D.) to the Mazdayasnians, are all shown to consider next-of-kin marriage perfectly righteous. The wide spread acceptance of this institution is further confirmed by some Arabic sources which note that Bih’afrid, a Zoroastrian reformer who lived in 800A.D., opposed next-of-kin marriage.

In all, Slotkin cites data from 23 bibliographies published between 1841 and 1908, citing sources that date back to the Fifth Century B.C.

This article portrays the Tarascan Empire as a militaristic “creation of great expansive energy and dramatic growth.” The greater part of the present state of Michoacan is territory that was under the direct control of the pre-Spanish Tarascan state. The empire of the Tarascans had grown with great speed and was still growing when the Spaniards invaded. Stanislawski includes a detailed map of the territory, which shows the “core of settlement,” march sites, conquest routes and controlled territory in relation to the bordering states.

The author seems highly impressed by Tarascan imperialism and suggests that their methods could be of interest to present day military. To accomplish conquering of such vast areas, the Tarascans would set up small armies in the border towns of their territory. From there, local leaders were responsible for further territorial conquest, which would all be incorporated into the Tarascan realm. As advances were made, new villages were settled as march sites. Sometimes hundreds of people were sent long distances for the establishment of the outposts. As the march sites expanded, so did the Tarascan territory.

Stanislawski describes placement of Tarascan settlements in relation to the geography of the region. He also speculates about the specific directions in which march sites advanced and whom the Tarascans conquered. He believes the major lines of aggression were: first, southeast to the Balsas and from there bending east to Oztuma where they aged a large war and, second, outwards to the west and south, specifically from the Jiquilpan-Periban march sites.

In conclusion, the Tarascans had developed an organization for combat and conquest that had certain unique features, especially the system of march sites as centers for military power and expansion. The author wonders at how large the Tarascan Empire may have grown if the Spaniards had not stopped them.

This article describes the civilization of the Tarascan. The main point is that they organized their society into military strongholds or villages. The author explains that the Tarascans were not as extravagant or numerous as the Aztecs, but too remarkable to be forgotten. Their core of villages was in the mountains of Michoacan in Mexico.

The Tarascans were a small-scale civilization who were very skilled in military attributes. They set up small villages (which were called march sites) on the borders of their enemies, and when the time was right they would attack and conquer their enemies and extend into their borders in that direction. They had a core base, which was in the center of their boundaries. Their mood was imperialistic and they organized villages for combat and conquest with unique styles.

When the Spanish came for the first time the Tarascans were overlooked because they were not as elaborate as the Aztecs. The Aztecs were one of the first to get attacked, but the Tarascans were conquered shortly after that. The author makes a closing remark that the Tarascans’ civilization might have been similar to the Aztecs if the Spanish had not started attacking them.

Underwood, Frances and Honigmann, Irma. A Comparison of Socialization and Personality in Two Simple Societies. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol.49:557-577.

The article focuses on how patterns of child development influence the eventual personality an individual will adopt. Knowledge of infancy and childhood prove beneficial in understanding adult personality, but a thorough understanding results only from a comprehension of the culture as a whole. The studies highlighted in the article were undertaken with the latter being apparent. The first society studied was the Kaska Indians of British Columbia and the southern Yukon Territory As a result of the climate and for economic reasons the Kaska Indians set up camp in the Lower Post, an area where trade and relaxation take place from May to September, and reside in the winter bush where they hunt and trap in order to facilitate the summer trade of furs. Inappropriate behavior is met with criticism, but the perpetrator is “accepted, respected and supported by his kin and friends.” Kaska Indian infants spend their infancy bound to their mothers. Mothers take their babies wherever they go, bundling the baby onto her back. The above ritual promotes a feeling of security. Children breast-feed for sustenance. At the age of three parent urge children to stop breast-feeding. However, a persistent child will be allowed to breast feed until he or she decides to break the habit. When a child learns to walk, he or she then becomes independent, with little parental supervision. Parents intervene only in cases of urgent danger. For example, the conductor of the study twice had to remove two-year-olds from the road to allow trucks to pass. Children must go to parents for comfort if hurt. Parents rarely out rightly refuse a child anything. Parents use tricks to divert a child’s attention from things the child desires. Temper tantrums amongst children occurred only during the 18 to 24 month age range, not coincidently the period in which emotional weaning also occurred. Play groups are small and children find satisfaction simply in the presence and exclamation of fellow mates, little interaction takes place. Parents are passive and provide little positive pressure. Socialization results from the standards richly ingrained in Kaska culture as answers to the troubles the individual will encounter in his or her environment. The above factors result in in unemotional, passive and introverted personality of adult Kaska Indians. Conversely, the Haitians of Southwestern Haiti exhibited extroversion and aggressiveness because most aspects of their lives are group-oriented. Homes are clustered around a central cleared area, and god-parents and their children are included as blood and close relatives. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The Haitians overflow with emotion, laughing, crying, being angered, etc. easily. The cause of the latter relates to the abrupt transition from being catered to as an infant to strict discipline thereafter. Children transform into adults who find camaraderie and economic gain from group activity because of the emphasis on interaction with others. The author used participatory observation in both studies. Interviews were also utilized in both studies. The Kaska understood simple English, but due to their severe introversion not much data resulted from interviews. The author systematically and logically offered evidence then stated her conclusion.

CLARITY RANKING: 4
NICA CLARK University of Georgia (Peter Brosius)

Underwood, Francis W., and Irma Honigmann. A Comparison of Socialization and Personality In Two Simple Societies. American Anthropologist 1947 Vol. 49:557-577.

This article presents information gathered from two different societies, the Kaska Indians of British Columbia and the Haitians of the Baymont Plateau, regarding the influence of childhood development patterns on the adult personality. The authors provide a separate overview for each group, as well as a concluding section in which the two societies are assessed in relation to cross-cultural trends. A majority of the data consists of the numerous social practices and patterns of behavior among the two groups.

Irma Honigmann first discusses various aspects of the Kaska culture, indicating the environment type, seasonal subsistence patterns, and social activities. The author then discusses the major influences of personality development among Kaska children. Here, Honigmann basically discusses specific features of child rearing and ultimately concludes by stating which particular features seem to have the most effect on the later personality. This includes how children are treated during infancy, the weaning process (which occurs early), potty training, and childhood in general. The author writes, “When a child can walk he is left more and more to himself, a process of emotional weaning takes place.” This stage of early weaning, both physical and emotional, has a most profound effect on the later “introverted” personalities of the Kaska. The author also points out that the Kaska have low energy levels as children and do not participate in much group play, except with their siblings, where strong, close relationships exist. Also, children learn by mostly observation without any particular pressures by adults. They are thus expected to more or less learn everything on their own. Basically, the laid-back way in which the Kaska society is structured allows for much individualism, as does the influences of early weaning processes mentioned above.

The next author, Underwood, looks at a group in Southwestern Haiti and presents the information under two separate lists: “Child Care” and “Training for Social Living.” Under childcare, the author basically explains such aspects as nursing, weaning, sleeping, health, crying, play, and others. Under the social living category, Underwood looks at factors, some of which include talking, work (which becomes very important at an early age), sex differentiation, and learning. The author heavily relies on information collected about discipline, describing numerous types used among the Haitians. The author then sums up by pointing out some important examples of childhood patterns and their effects on the adult personality. As the Haitians were noted to be friendly and open people, they were considered “extroverted,” as opposed to the “introverted” Kaskas. This is seen partly as a result of their early exposure to sexuality and toilet training, both very open among the group. Their society is very group-oriented, which is also seen as a factor. The Haitians also show signs of relative aggressiveness and insecurity, which is related to the possible “harsh” discipline they received as children. Underwood points out some relative individualism here too, especially in relation to politics and emotions, however, it is nothing like that of the Kaskas.

The authors have shown that, in these two cases, particular childhood development patterns have definite influences on later personalities. The authors suggest that “affectional relationships” and “the nature of discipline and its administration,” as illustrated by the Kaska and Haitian material, should be added to the list of “diagnostics” to be looked for in explaining the structuring of personalities.

Villa Rojas, Alfonso. Kinship and Nagualism In a Tzeltal Community. The American Anthropologist. 1947 Vol. 49:578-587.

This article covers two important aspects of social organization among the Tzeltal Indians of Chiapas, Mexico: their kinship system based on patrilineal clans and social control through the practice of Nagualism. These are described in depth, and a bibliography of cited sources is provided. Villa Rojas did his research under the auspices of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and spent twenty months among the Tzeltal.

Roughly 40,000 Tzeltal-speaking Indians reside in north-central Chiapas. Due to their relative isolation from European influence, they have retained most of their cultural traditions. The state of Chiapas is divided up into a number of municipios each comprised of one tribe. In the municipios of Oxchuc the tribe is divided into two groups called capules, each with its own patron saint and body of officials. Membership is not based on kinship, locality, or heredity but is by choice. Elders within the capules function as judges, priests, and healers.

The most important social affiliation is the clan. Clans are made up of several patrilineages. Unlike their neighbors in Cancun, the Tzeltal do not associate totems with the clans, nor are there any myths about clan origins. Marriages are exogamous in accord with incest-taboos and bride-price is practiced. Land inheritance is patrilineal.

Nagualism plays an important role in social control. It is believed that chiefs and elders receive supernatural aid from naguals and take it upon themselves to police community behavior and morals. The naguals are incorporeal but can assume physical form and are pictured as animals, i.e. dogs, lizards, hawks, and in some instances, dwarves, as well as balls of colored fire. Naguals are feared because they are sent to punish people for their transgressions. The punishment is usually in the form of an illness. Healers, referred to as “pulse-takers,” attempt to discern what sins the victim has committed and to learn the identity of the person who sent the nagual. Confession of the sins usually “purifies” the miscreant. If the illness continues a healer may release his own naguals to remove the evil one. Third-party use of naguals to cause harm is considered a form of sorcery.

Belief in nagualism is common among many Indian groups in Mexico and Central America. The particular way it operates in moral control is considered to derive from pre-columbian practices of Middle-American tribes.

The article by C.F. Voegelin and Z. S. Harris seeks to discuss the place of linguistics in cultural anthropology. Within cultural anthropology, it is generally held the data of linguistics and cultural anthropology are largely the same. The article begins by describing human behavior as “never purely verbal; nor, in the general case, is it non verbal.” Linguistics, in its nature, studies the verbal aspect of human behavior. It then describes how cultural anthropologists separate the non-verbal aspect from the verbal.

However, the article acknowledges the exception to this “rule” of cultural anthropological study. This exception, ethno-linguistics, attempt to “integrate the verbal and non verbal aspects of behavior.

It is acknowledged reliability is “enhanced” when linguistics and archaeological work is correlated. The article goes further to refer to the most famous use of historical ethno-linguistics—the investigation of the last common home of the Indo-Europeans. Nevertheless, the linguistic aspect of studying history and reconstruction need to be extremely exact. Linguistic techniques allow a worker to see the components for any single language. Then the worker could “give the distribution of the parts of the whole.

This then allows one to see what is actually important. It becomes possible to distinguish clearly between elements that are and are not linguistic. As the article states, “Such criteria are lacking in ethnographies where culture traits are none too clearly distinguished from culture complexes and where a given segment of behavior may be regarded by one worker as an expression of [culture and personality], and segment of behavior.”

In conclusion, this article was not of any interest. However, it does make the reader aware of linguistics role in cultural anthropology.

In this article, C.F. Voegelin and Z.S. Harris collaborate to provide an overview of the relationship between linguistics and cultural anthropology and of current trends in linguistics. Each writer apparently prepared an independent summary of ideas, which served as a basis for ensuing discussion. The article elaborates the topics that provoked fruitful debate. These topics are “Linguistics and Cultural Anthropology” and “Trends in Linguistics.”

With the topic of “Linguistics and Cultural Anthropology,” four main points emerged:

· “The data of linguistics and of cultural anthropology are largely the same.”:

The authors claimed that data from linguistics and ethnographies, as well as archaeological data, could be correlated to give greater validity to research. Examples of this can be seen in work from Sapir with Native Americans, and in Malinowski’s work with the Trobriand Islanders.

· “The techniques of linguistics and of cultural anthropology are in general different.”:

In the discussion of this point, they claim that linguistics is more of a solid field than cultural anthropology, because it has easily distinguishable traits and rules that can be quantitatively measured. Cultural anthropology has broader issues to deal with concerning the ways that cultures interact with each other and how they have interacted throughout time. This type of information uses techniques, such as ethnography, for its study. Therefore, the techniques used in each discipline are different.

· “Use of native language in the study of culture constitutes an associated observation rather than a tool of ethnology.”:

The authors claim that ethnographers can attain the same basic information from completely bilingual informants, as they can by learning the native language. Therefore, language becomes an associated observation, rather than an essential tool.

· “Problems which linguistics has in common with other fields are only partly shared by cultural anthropology.”

Linguistics shares mathematical and logical problems with fields like physics. Cultural anthropology has connections to other fields like a shared “study of diet” with physiology.

The second major topic that Voeglin and Harris address concerns “Trends in Linguistics.” This involves six main points:

· “A central interest in modern linguistics is the synchronic description of one language at a time.”:

A shift from historical linguistics to descriptive linguistics has occurred. The historical perspective involved the comparison of languages to each other, so that languages could be fully reconstructed. This turned out to be an unrealistic approach to linguistics because of the immense number of languages that exist. Now, the description of individual languages is the accepted way of practicing linguistics.

· “The fact that linguistics permits exact statements has led to experimentation in compact and highly organized description.”:

In the past, grammar was categorized in an unorganized fashion, where a certain word in a language could be recorded in several, inconsistent ways. Now, phonemic writing tactics are used, and the description of grammars is much more compact and efficient.

· “Applied linguistics is used in education and in social control.”:

Linguistics affects the ways that “practical teaching, dictionary work, code work, devising of alphabets, and administrative problems concerned with subject populations” is undertaken. While descriptive linguistics only plays a small part in these fields, it is still involved.

· “Structural comparability of languages may be stated independently of their genetic relationship.”:

Five approaches are offered for creating linguistic typologies. These approaches are:

The use of Indo-European languages as a model in which other languages can be compared.

Using features in native languages to lead to a wider knowledge of linguistic diversity.

Looking at various languages to compare their grammars.

The use of generalizing suggests that languages are linked through processes such as evolution.

By comparing the structures of languages the relationships between them might be discovered.

Comparative techniques have not been fully utilized in regard to aboriginal languages. The authors suggest that the use of these techniques would greatly increase our knowledge of these languages in the future.

· “Dialect geography and diffusional areal studies offer a new approach to historical problems in anthropology.”:

Linguistics can be analyzed geographically, linking similar languages together, to develop an interpretation of history. This kind of interpretation would show how groups that speak certain languages might have diffused over time.

In this article, the authors just offer a list of their points. They do not give any final analysis or conclusion. It appears that they are just trying to illustrate some of the ways that linguistics was being used at that time, and its relationship with anthropology.

Vogelin, C.F. and Harris Z.S. The Scope of Linguistics. The American Anthropologist 1947. V49: 588-599.

The authors discuss how linguistics fits into cultural anthropology and the important connections and distinctions between them. The second portion of the article presents recent changes in linguistics that suggest some paradigm shifts within the discipline.

The article begins by discussing some of the goals that are shared between linguistics and cultural anthropology. Each possesses unique investigative characteristics, produce very unique results, and can work in conjunction with each other. The authors argue that the results and goals of each discipline have relatively sharp borders. Cultural anthropology tends to produce broader contexts of interpretation, while linguistic results are more quantitative in nature. The paradox within this discussion is that linguists and cultural anthropologists approach some of the same problems in different ways, but also end up with data that may be of importance to each others’ discipline.

The second portion of the article examines trends in linguistics during the early to middle portion of the 20th century, which include the application outside of academics and paradigm shifts within the discipline. The author highlights the fact that the point of view is a synchronic one. The organization of grammars has recently made a change towards an inventory of language components that is more unified and allows comparisons between languages. The new approach is more inclusive and reduces the need for the creation of rules based on some exceptions between many language grammars.

One fairly significant change that has been emerging is a movement towards looking at languages as an individual “species” when under linguistic analysis without the constraints of using the genetic parent language as a benchmark for reference. Other changes include the historical and comparative methods, used previously to examine languages of European origin, have yet to be sufficiently applied to aboriginal languages such as North American native languages and their parent languages. The last trend the authors include is the application of linguistic methodology to the study of the distribution and diffusion of linguistic features among people in specific geographic areas.

This article, in its time, was a very valuable explanation of new ideas but over the years developments have made it seem outdated and irrelevant

Edgar Lee Hewett is best known for his founding legacy in American archeology. In 1898, Hewett organized the first college courses in American archeology at the Normal University, Las Vegas, New Mexico and also led field expeditions to explore and excavate ancient Pueblo sites on the Pajarito Plateau. During these same years, Hewett took a gamble on the future of archaeology and changed his career focus from the security offered by teaching to the unknowns of archeological research. He went on to assist in the development of departments of American archeology and anthropology in many western universities and colleges. However, his primary professional objective was to found and develop The School of American Archeology (later renamed The School of American Research) at Santa Fe. This he accomplished in 1909, together with the start of the Museum of New Mexico. He went on to serve as Director of both school and museum, holding both these positions until his death.

Hewett was “a defender of Indian rights and fought those who would dissociate the Indian from his ancient culture and ceremonial rites.” He drafted federal acts for preservation of American antiquities and the establishment of national monuments by presidential proclamation. He undertook archaeological survey work in support of the creation of the Mesa Verde National Park, and later the Chaco National Monument.

Hewett received many degrees and honors, both at home and abroad. A prolific writer with 250 titles covering a wide diversity of subjects, his best-known book was “Ancient Life in the American Southwest.” Hewett’s long teaching career included an initial stint in small country schools, followed by a period teaching literature and history at his almamater Tarkio College, Missouri. Hewitt was warmly remembered as an exemplary teacher from his early manhood well into his declining years.

This article is an elaborate obituary and summary of Edgar Lee Hewett’s life works. In it Walter takes the reader down the road of Hewett’s life. Hewett was born in Illinois on November 23, 1895. He spent the first eight years of his life on a farm there and before moving to Chicago, and then at the age of fifteen moving to a Missouri farm. It was in Missouri that Hewett began teaching in a country school at the age of nineteen. From there Hewett went on to become a huge figure in archeological and anthropological research. Hewett began archeological fieldwork between 1894 and 1898 on the Pajarito Plateau and at Pecos and eventually mapped and made that area known through “publications and field excursions”. 1906 was a big year for Hewett as he drafted the federal act for the preservation of American antiquities and the establishment of national monument s by Presidential proclamation, performed an archaeological survey for the creation of the Mesa Verde National Park, and was chosen as Director of American Research by the Archaeological Institute of America (a position, Walter points out, that he held until his death). Hewett then went on to found and direct the San Diego Museum. In 1929 Hewett “founded and took the chair of Professor of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, retiring in 1940, as Professor Emeritus”. Hewett made numerous publications, taught at many universities, and aided in archaeological research around the world. In 1931 he “drafted the New Mexico laws for the preservation of the State’s antiquities”, “modeled after his earlier drafts for the federal Lacey Act” (262).

Hewett was “influenced in his archaeological and ethnological viewpoints by Louis H. Morgan, whom he called his preceptor”. He was, Walter says, “at times uncompromising and made many enemies”. In the racist thought still prevalent at the time Hewett struggled for people to see the importance of American Indians in their own European background, and it was this point, which brought controversy. Although confident in his and his friends beliefs Hewett was not definite about where he stood with regards to how the artifacts should be viewed in regards to the present.

Hewett’s Memorial services were held in the St. Francis Auditorium of the Art Museum on Sunday Afternoon on August 31, 1947, at the close of the annual sessions of the Board of Managers of the School. This obituary is followed by a lengthy bibliography arranged by date.

This defense of the hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved contiguously from earlier forms of hominids was mounted at a time when Piltdown Man was still considered a possible human ancestor. Weidenreich argues that two other contemporary hypotheses, that humans appeared spontaneously in the distant past or devolved from other forms, are inconsistent with the theory of evolution. Instead, he shows that morphological traits in a carefully selected sample of specimens can demonstrate evolutionary continuity.

Weidenreich argued that, even if a modern-looking skull were found in a context far older than expected (he doubted the validity of Piltdown Man as a legitimate specimen), it would not mean that precursors did not exist. He argued that such a discovery would merely push back the date of first appearance and that precursors would eventually be unearthed as time went on. He also noted the inconsistency in conclusions exhibited by his adversaries: the same experts who could clearly identify the evolutionary effects in the morphology of non-human fossils seemed reluctant to do so with Homo sapiens.

Weidenreich also argued against the hypothesis that the evolution of humanity necessarily included an increase in size, such as brain and body, at each step. He noted that the average European’s brain size was smaller than that of the average Neanderthal’s, implying that the link between brain size and intelligence was dubious under certain circumstances. He summarized this adversary’s argument, that, “…man did not originate from ape-like creatures but apes have originated from man,” and asks, “If this is so, what is the meaning of the ‘simian stigmata’ demonstrable on the skull of Homo sapiens? If they are not relics of the past then they must be ‘sprouts,’ foreboding of some future ‘microcephalic regression’.” He did not consider this latter explanation reasonable.

In this article Franz Weidenreich a prominent paleoanthropologist discusses the ancestry of the human race. Specifically he looks at the placement of Sinanthropus and Pithecanthropus (a.k.a. the Peking man and Java man respectively), into the ancestral line of Homo sapiens. Weidenreich had published a monograph on Sinanthropus four years prior to this article, and it is his conclusion that these two races, which are synonymous, predate Neandertals and further link modern humans with the great apes. In this article it is Weidenreich’s apparent intent to further support his findings and theories as well as to dispel certain trains of thought still circulating.

The problems presented arise from creationist and racist views of the day and problems of accurate dating. Weidenreich lists a number of authors who use inconsistencies in dating and questionable data (e.g. Piltdown man, the Kanam jaw among others) to fuel support for their own ideas, and sustain more traditional trains of thought. The question is how do we place these examples of pre-humans? Weidenreich points out that there are numerous examples of intermediate morphologies between apes and man. Opposing views state that these intermediates are merely failed evolutionary “experiments”, which as one author writes stem from the base that is man. Weidenreich presents examples of traits in humans that derive from apes. He refers to them as “simian stigmata”, and examples include various ridges in pre-humans and apes that have been reduced to mere bulges or lines in humans. Furthermore, he goes on to relate current morphologies, and points out that although all humans living today are essentially made from the same plan, that between cultures there are more and less predominant features which given time might survive or might not.

In support of his findings Weidenreich uses the findings of two authors Pere Teilhard de Chardin and Vittorio Marcozzi. Weidenreich uses these two authors to state the position of Peking man and Java man in the ancestral line. Teilhard points out the large cranial capacity of Sinanthropus along with an erect posture and a face which does not extend outward (i.e. no prognathism). Marcozzi specifically looks at the temporal region of Sinanthropus but also points out the general blend of homo sapiens and ape-like features. Both of these authors point out that these two specimen are by and large more ape-like than man-like. Weidenreich goes on to point out that the fossil line is filled with examples of man-apes, which exhibit in varying degrees the characteristics of modern man and the phasing out of more ape-like characteristics, and that since the dating of these fossils has been inconsistent that morphology should be the basis for creating an evolutionary line. Weidenreich concludes with a diagram of how he views the evolutionary line at the time.

Leslie A White’s article addresses an article, “Evolution in Cultural Anthropology: A Reply to Leslie White,” written by Professor Lowie in an earlier issue of American Anthropologist. White claims that Lowie confused the issues involved in three of White’s articles he attempted to clarify. White also states that he never accused Lowie of plagiarizing Lewis Henry Morgan, that many modern ideas originated with Aristotle, and that he is sorry Lowie received the impression he was under attack.

The first issue the received criticism from Lowie was White’s great respect for Lewis Henry Morgan. White believes Morgan is belittled and misrepresented in anthropology and has attempted to serve Morgan justice by defending him in several articles. White believes Lowie interprets his fascination with Morgan as blind and fanatical. White claims he never argued perfection in Morgan, but that be rarely mentioned his shortcomings because others have already done so to an extensive degree.

The second issue raised in the article is that of Morgan and the Darwinians. In his article “Morgan’s Attitude Toward Religion and Science,” White states that after the publication of the Origin of Species, a controversy arose between the theological and the scientific conceptions of humans. White argued that if involved in this controversy, one would be in favor of one side or the other. Many anthropologists believed that Morgan was not an evolutionist, which was a false claim. Lowie wrote in one of his most recent articles that Morgan never severed himself from Christian orthodoxy. White disagrees. In the same article Lowie shows that there existed distinguished scientist who were religious and devout men who contributed to science. White agrees with this claim, but states they were not involved in the controversy between evolution and theology.

Another issue raised in this article is of whether or not the Boasians were anti-evolutionist. Lowie argues that they attacked the work of many evolutionist authors. White states that the students of Boas were not opposed to evolution, but to unilinear evolution. White uses example from the works of Sapir, Benedict, Bunzel, and Stern to prove his point. Yet another issue addressed in this article is that of diffusion and how it related to the idea of evolution. Lowie believes evolutionists must take diffusion into account. White used the work of Einstein, Infeld, Tylor, and Kroeber to prove that indeed evolution is written about without reference to diffusion. White argues that the development of traits and their diffusion to other regions are two entirely different processes, and that they work together, rather than defy each other.

This article will interest individuals who are familiar with the controversy between the Christian theological conception of man and the scientific evolutionary conception of man. A heated argument is played out in the article, which is informative and makes for a fascinating read. White’s article thoroughly clarifies the issues raised in his earlier articles.

The Boasian school of thought, constituting the primary view of anthropological theory in America at the time this article was written, strongly rejected cultural evolution. White on the other hand believed fervently in cultural evolution and had resolutely defended Morgan and his theories against the Boasians. This article is White’s reply to a critique mounted by Robert Lowie, a Boasian, on 3 essays White had published in earlier issues of the American Anthropologist. White’s reply focuses on seven points of argument, most of which seek to clarify earlier propositions that he believes Lowie did not understand.

White was accused by Lowie of not having the ability to be critical of Morgan. White disputes this by pointing out that he did a critique where he argued that Morgan’s analysis of Aztec society was wrong due to data which Morgan “supplied and used.” However, White goes on to remind Lowie that Morgan has been overly attacked: “ignored, belittled, and misrepresented.” Because of this, White has come to his defense.

White then clarifies that Morgan was a Darwinian and not a Christian theologian. He presents him as religious, but not a believer in divine creation.

White’s third argument is that the Boasians are clearly “anti-evolutionists.” While Lowie had written that the Boasians only attacked evolutionary specifics, White provides many quotes that show Boasians attacking cultural evolution more generally. He also argues that if Boasians had only disagreed with the specifics in a theory, they would have tried to replace these aspects with better ones.

As his 4th argument, White restates a point he had made in an earlier essay and book, because he felt that Lowie did not seem to understand it. White maintained that Morgan and Tylor both believed in diffusion and that contrary to the popular opinion in American anthropology, it was possible for both evolution and diffusion to have taken place. White insisted that “the development of a [cultural] trait or complex and its diffusion to other regions are two quite different processes,” however.

White’s next argument focuses on the fact that many Boasians, including Lowie, believed more data was needed before theories could be developed, if they could ever be developed at all. Lowie had apparently asked White whether his arguments were “empirical inductions” or “a priori constructs.” White replies by quoting Einstein to the effect that inductive methods would not have led to the “fundamental concepts of physics.” White insists that facts do not speak for themselves. He argues that the Boasian mistrust of theorizing oppresses “reflective thought” and “creative imagination and theory,” and goes against science in general.

White then argues against Lowie’s statement that the Catholic anthropologist-priests, Schmidt and Koppers, were really evolutionists at heart. White provides quotes which are meant to show their strong rejection of cultural evolution

White’s last point is a response to Lowie’s suggestion that he simply “relax” because evolutionary theory is secure. White agrees with Lowie that evolutionary theory is secure in the long run, but re-emphasizes that it is “steadily loosing ground.”

Williams, Elgin. Anthropology for the Common Man. American Anthropologist. 1947 Vol. 49:84-90.

In this review of Ruth Benedect’s Patterns of Culture, Elgin Williams uses Benedict’s work to argue that post WWII “anthropology” was heading down a slippery slope towards the relativistic fallacy. Williams takes his case to the post-war “common man,” arguing that Benedict’s pleas for tolerance toward disaffected groups are a ruse to distract attention from anthropology’s deeper indifference.

Williams states that, “It is nothing new that war is bad and that women and children ought to be free… But it is just this tolerance which is anthropology’s root and core. The conclusion is inescapable that the polemics against asocial habits are intrusions and the real message is Relativism.” Williams then proceeds on a somewhat confusing course: to attack “Relativism” using Benedict’s work while showing that Benedict herself is not able to separate her personal judgments from her observations of other cultures.

Williams uses examples from Benedict’s examinations of marital relations, child-rearing, and attitudes toward sex to argue that Benedict is being hypocritical by letting her own sense of morality color her commentary while at the same time pushing for more tolerance of other people’s way of life.

Elgin William’s article discusses the publication and presentation of Ruth Benedict’s Pattern of Culture in which Williams finds fault with Benedict’s messages regarding violence and tolerance of that behavior. In her book, Benedict addressed issues of warlike behavior in different cultures, but Williams seems to focus on the violence itself rather than the message that Benedict was trying to convey: understanding of that behavior and tolerance. Williams questions Benedict’s theoretical interpretation of her research by critiquing her dogmatic approach of cultural relativism. Williams believed that Benedict’s interpretation of these rituals were exaggerated and over simplified. The author believes that “the common man” will not understand Benedicts proposal of tolerance; the author took her work as a personal attack on himself and the human race.

This article is a critique of Benedict’s dogmatic relativistic approach to anthropological research, but it shows how personal the critique of anthropological research can be. The reader must continually keep in mind the time period that Benedict’s book was written and presented to “the common man/woman.” If it were not for Ruth Benedict’s publication and the critiquing of anthropological research, anthropology may not be as widely recognized or seen as relevant.